Judge Dismisses Federal Prosecutor's Subpoenas, Deems His Appointment Unlawful

Wed Feb 18 2026 20:17:42 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant ruling, a U.S. District Judge disqualified federal prosecutor John Sarcone from overseeing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, asserting that his appointment was unlawful. The ruling blocks subpoenas issued by Sarcone connected to investigations against political adversaries including Donald Trump.

A U.S. District Judge ruled that John Sarcone, the acting U.S. attorney for Northern New York, was unlawfully serving when he requested subpoenas against New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge's decision quashed the subpoenas and disqualified Sarcone from the investigation, marking a legal victory for James amidst claims of politically motivated investigations. The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures in appointing federal officials.

ALBANY, N.Y. (FlashPoint) – In a pivotal decision, U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield has disqualified federal prosecutor John Sarcone, ruling he unlawfully oversaw investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge blocked subpoenas issued by Sarcone that were aimed at probing James’ legal actions against former President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.

Judge Schofield expressed serious concerns regarding the Department of Justice's adherence to statutory appointment procedures, noting that Sarcone's tenure was not legally validated after judges refused to extend it. “When the Executive branch bypasses established checks, it undermines lawful authority. The subpoenas in question are void and Mr. Sarcone cannot continue in the investigations,” she stated.

Attorney General James has criticized the inquiries as an extension of politically motivated attacks against her office, referring to them as baseless investigations targeting her lawsuits against Trump.

Justice Department representatives maintain that Sarcone’s appointment and his subpoenas were valid under federal law. They argue that the attorney general retains significant discretion in appointing attorneys and delegating responsibilities.

The ruling reflects a broader trend of courts challenging controversial maneuvers by the Trump administration concerning the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Past rulings have echoed similar themes, invalidating actions of appointees whom courts deemed improperly placed.

James has lauded the judge's ruling as a crucial win for the rule of law and affirmed her commitment to waging legal battles against political grievances.